These are all LIES! Social Security can continue to pay full benefits for another 25 years, and then continue paying over 75% of benefits even if nothing is done. And a simple adjustment, raising or eliminating the cap on FICA taxes, would make the program solvent for generations. The program is NOT bankrupt, and WILL be there when younger Americans need it.
And the best part of this simple adjustment is that almost all of the working and middle classes wouldn't have to pay any more in FICA taxes than they currently pay. All it would do is ask wealthy Americans to pay the same percentage that workers already pay (which they should be doing anyway).
Don't fall for the Republican lies. Don't let them cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize Social Security. The truth is that Social Security is an excellent government program, which works exactly like it was supposed to work. It has significantly reduced the number of elderly Americans living in poverty.
The first comment to this post states:
ReplyDelete"...show that an increase in the payroll tax of one tenth of one percent... about eighty cents per week... per year would enable workers to pay for their own longer life expectancy at a higher real benefit for the forseeable future. The tax increase would not need to continue for more than about the next twenty years... "
Ted, you are simply uninformed on this issue. First, Social Security isn't a tax. It is insurance, that is HIGHLY progressive according to the Social Security Administration.
ReplyDeleteSecond, "The Republicans have always hated Social Security, " is historically not true. Between inception and 1983, Social Security enjoyed roughly 80% support of Republican Congressman. Republicans Congressman supported SS at inception by roughly 4 to 1.
Third, "Social Security can continue to pay full benefits for another 25 years" The Trustees have said that with a good economy Social Security might last as long as 21 years. There are some very optimistic assumption there. The less optimistic put the figure at about 14 years.
Four, your argument about privatization is a straw-dragon. No one is proposing it at the moment other than marginal groups. There is no way to afford it. Risk is the least of the problems. Once money is diverted from Social Security, the system goes to insolvency faster.
"The truth is that Social Security is an excellent government program, which works exactly like it was supposed to work. It has significantly reduced the number of elderly Americans living in poverty. "
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, you are unaware what Social Security was for. Originally it was to be a self-funded contributory benefits system - insurance paid for by the worker. That radically changed in the 1950 when the system was redesigned as a paygo system. While the system has been made much more progressive, anti-poverty isn't in the system charter. The system has no visibility into need.
Pete Stark, a wealthy former Congressman, will collect vastly more than average Americans, who collect more than the elderly in need.
The system doesn't operate like it was intended, and doesn't serve the purpose of poverty abatement.
Joe-
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have bought into the Republican lies (which is no surprise, since on your own blog you quote the Heritage Foundation and Charles Krauthammer). While it may not have been "in its charter", the Social Security system was designed to give the elderly an income after they retire -- and it has reduced poverty among the elderly from over 50% to less than 10%. That sounds like a pretty effective program to me.
And Republicans have not always supported social security. They tried to defeat its creation, and have been trying to damage or eliminate it ever since then. Call them "marginal" if you want, but there are many current congressional Republicans that would privatize Social Security in an instant if given the opportunity.
You are right about one thing. The wealthy get a bigger Social Security check than the poor do. Are you suggesting some kind of means testing. That is one "reform" I would be open to discussing, but I still think there should be no cap on FICA taxes (and yes, it is a tax, even though it go to a worthy project and purpose).
The problem with your statement "They tried to defeat its creation, and have been trying to damage or eliminate it ever since then." is that there is no evidence. I don't know anything but voting records. The only records that I see are voting records. These records suggest that Republicans actively supported Social Security. Ike and Reagan oversaw massive increases in the system. Both had veto power. In terms of voting, they have actively supported Social Security through 1983.
ReplyDeleteIke said any party that didn't support Social Security would cease to be a political party.
In the mid-90s a rift within the Republican party developed in response to lowering economic returns of the system. Support for a privatized system has grown, but that support has never reached a level within the party to get the proposal out of a committee that they controled.
Bush's proposal died in committee in 2005. I don't think Ryan's roadmp for America even reached committee. I had an opportunity to talk to my Congressman who claims to be for privatizing the system. His statements suggest to me that he is not familiar with the details of the bills he claims to support. He knows that it is popular in his district and that it will never come to a vote.
If you believe that Social Security is a tax, we will have a difficult time finding a middle ground. While it is collected as a tax, it is uses as an insurance premium. I can't call something a tax that gives me a dedicate revenue stream.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that the returns of high-wage earners is so low that it is in part a tax. For them it is part insurance and part tax. It is harder to describe payroll 'taxes' as taxes for lower wage workers who get EITC credits to offset the cost. On top of that they get an economic asset at a far lower price they they could get in the private market.
Social Security is a tax provide that you agree that the payor will not get anything in return. Your article is based on the exact opposite.
Last observation, Social Security is already means-tested and has been since 1984 with a test that reaches up to 1/3rd of retirees.
ReplyDeleteA "tax" is defined as either a "charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes" or as "sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses." Since the amount paid in for Social Security does not serve public purposes or defray expenses, it's hard to define it as a tax.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I find it difficult to agree with anything else that Joe says.
Whether you call it a tax or not is sophistry and to say the the argument is "based on the opposite" just makes no sense. The article is based on the functionality of the Social Security system and is essentially factual in all respects.
How is Social Security means tested? And what is the "test that reasche up to 1/3 of retirees" mean? Do they pick the 1/3 at random? Do they test people whose SS number is divisible by 3? Do they test every third applicant? What test do they apply? Because they certainly don't set upper benefit limits based on current income.
@Jay,
ReplyDeleteIf you think that Republicans have tried to destroy Social Security, you will have a difficult time finding it in the voting records. As individuals, they may not have liked it but the system enjoyed overwhelming support through 1983.
Since then, some in the GOP have wanted to privatize the system. At no point have they suggested doing away with Social Security. In fact, whether it was Bush, Ryan, Newt, or any other plan, 'privatization' in GOP speak has meant make the system bigger.
There is nothing in voting records that suggests : "They have always hated it, and have tried many ways to get rid of it."
The means test is applied on the 1040 where a percentage of your benefits becomes "taxible" if you have substantial outside means. The reason that it is so wide ranging is that it looks at all of your outside income including payouts from other annuities and savings like the 401K.
ReplyDeleteThe point about whether it is a tax or not is the core of the debate. If it is a tax, there is no way to justify not raising the cap. If it is not a tax, there is no way to justify raising the cap. The system - according to data from SSA - says that the system is highly progresive.
ReplyDeleteMost of what I say is readily available from the Social Security Administration. So you aren't questioning what I say as much as what I am repeating. If you doubt the Social Security Administration, the finances are really a secondary issue.
Voting records are not necessarily the best way to determine support for a particular issue, particularly if the support is not popular. Unpopular issues often never get to a vote. I think republican attempts at destroying SS fall in that category.
ReplyDelete@Jerry, Social Security had its vote, and in 1935, through the 50s, and in 1983. All of these times, Social Security enjoyed Republican support of 4 or 5 to 1.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans had their chance to end Social Security in 1983. All Reagan had to do was nothing, and Social Security would have started paying depleted benefits in the 1980s. Reagan had to engineer a deal with Tip that could be sold to his base. The Republican controlled Senate could have ended the system over Reagan's voice with a fillabuster. The Republicans had the opportunity to take a no-vote, and they clearly declined.
Individual Congressman may or may not have agreed with Social Security on a personal level. I am sure that there are many quotes. But votes reflect the will of the voters. GOP voters pretty clearly heavily supported Social Security.
On what basis do you question the historical Republican support of Social Security?